Journal of Religion and Health (2025) 64:3105–3127 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-025-02313-7 PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPLORATION Unveiling the Multifaceted Nature of Spirituality: Assessing the Dimensions of the Spirituality Inventory in the Turkish Context—A Preliminary Adaptation and Validity Reliability Study Halil Ekşi1  · Dilek Günel1,4  · Ece Yağcı Akgündüz1,2  · Emre Gürkan1  · Fadile Zeynep Çavuş1,3  · Yasemin Altıntaş1 Accepted: 26 March 2025 / Published online: 24 April 2025 © The Author(s) 2025 Abstract The measurement of spirituality, a concept with significant implications for mental health, requires instruments that can assess its complexity and diversity without cultural limitations. This study adapts the Dimensions of Spirituality Inventory (DSI) into Turkish, examining its validity and reliability. A linguistic equivalence study with 43 participants showed coefficients between .79 and .91. The test–retest correlation coefficients of the subscales ranged from .35 to .78. The 53-item scale was then administered to 671 adults, and confirmatory factor analysis indicated an acceptable fit. The internal consistency reliability coefficient was .90. Positive correlations with related scales confirmed acceptable criterion-related validity. The study concluded that the Turkish version of the DSI is a valid and reliable tool for use in scientific research in Türkiye. Keywords Spirituality · Dimensions of spirituality · Scale adaptation · Validity · Reliability Introduction Historically, topics such as religion and spirituality have received less attention within the scientific discourse, primarily due to the prevailing positivist paradigms. Nevertheless, since the onset of the twenty-first century, the significance of religion and spirituality in human functionality has gained recognition, catalyzing broader acceptance within scientific circles (Emmons & Paloutzian, 2003; Hill et al., 2000; Miller & Thoresen, 2003; Zinnbauer et  al., 1999). Powers (2005) argued that this shift is largely due to therapists recognizing the spiritual dimensions of their clients’ mental health challenges, thereby integrating these insights into clinical practice. In Extended author information available on the last page of the article Vol.:(0123456789) 3106 Journal of Religion and Health (2025) 64:3105–3127 essence, real-world observations have increasingly informed and enriched the scien- tific study of these areas. With respect to the emergence of the concept of spirituality, traditional research has centered on the concepts of religion and religiosity. Religiosity refers to practices and experiences linked to transcendent, divine and religious institutions. On the other hand, spirituality was used to describe spiritual practices such as mysticism or nonreligious practices such as séances before it was treated separately in this field (Pargament, 2023). Closer to the present day, different definitions of spirituality have emerged. For example, Benner (1989, p. 20) defines spirituality as “the human response to God’s call for relationship”; Elkins et al. (1988) defines it as “a way of being and experiencing that is characterized by an awareness of the transcendent dimension and identifiable values about self, others and nature”; Hart (1994, p. 23), “the fundamental orientation of an individual’s life, its relation to the ultimate foundations of existence, the transcendence of the human spirit”; Shafranske and Gorsuch (1984, p. 231), “a transcendent dimension in human experience, emerging at moments when the individual seeks the meaning of his or her existence and tries to place the self in a more inclusive ontological context”; Vaughan (1991, p.105), “the subjective experience of the sacred, in contrast to the institutionalization of religion”. Despite the multitude of definitions that exist regarding spirituality, it is a fundamental truth that spirituality has consistently been concerned with the “inner world” and “inner experience” of humanity. It provides a framework for understanding the significance and purpose of a transcendent connection that extends beyond the confines of one’s life and human experience (Sargeant & Yoxall, 2023). This diversity in the definition of spirituality also leads to difficulties in its measurement. One of the challenges in quantifying spirituality lies in determining whether it should be conceptualized as a singular construct or a multidimensional phenomenon. Research indicates that spirituality is not perceived as a universal truth (Ammerman, 2013; Eisenmann et al., 2016; Steensland et al., 2018; Zinnbauer et al., 1997). For instance, Zinnbauer et al. (1997) identified thirteen distinct categories of spirituality based on their studies across various religious and professional groups. Similarly, Eisenmann et al. (2016) proposed a hierarchical model of spirituality with forty-four dimensions initially, which were refined to ten and three dimensions in subsequent analyses. Ammerman (2013) supports these findings, suggesting that spirituality comprises multiple dimensions, which was echoed by Steensland et al. (2018), who described seven unique forms of spirituality. Collectively, these studies highlight the complex and rich nature of spirituality. Although often associated with religion, spirituality encompasses broader experiences such as the pursuit of meaning, transcendent experiences, commitment, respect, and gratitude toward a mysterious entity, and personal transformation. For example, Pargament (1997) defines spirituality as the quest for the sacred, which is crucial both within and outside religious contexts. Unlike religion, which may involve various sacred and secular pursuits, spirituality strictly addresses the sacred, aiding individuals in finding deeper meaning in life and death through personal and interpersonal connections. Furthermore, spirituality and religion are considered vital in managing life challenges and understanding their causes, influencing coping Journal of Religion and Health (2025) 64:3105–3127 3107 mechanisms and responses to life events (Pargament, 1997). Research on the impact of spirituality on mental health, such as that of Larson and Larson’s (2003) analysis of more than 1200 studies, suggests that spirituality fosters inner peace and aids in managing stress and anger, thereby offering protection against depression. More recent studies, including that of Coppola et  al. (2021), revealed positive correlations between spirituality and mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic. The research conducted by Shattuk and Muehlenbein (2020) demonstrates the correlation between spirituality and not only mental health but also physical health. To accurately measure spirituality and related constructs, numerous scales have been developed globally, such as the Spirituality Expressions Inventory (Macdonald, 2000), the Assessment of Spirituality and Religious Emotions Scale (ASPIRES) (Piedmont, 2004; Piedmont et al., 2008), and the Daily Spiritual Experiences Scale (Underwood & Teresi, 2002), among others. In Turkey, similar efforts have resulted in instruments such as the Spirituality Scale (Şirin, 2018), the Intrinsic Spirituality Scale (Ekşi et  al., 2018), and the Maternal Spiritual Coping Scale (Yaman et  al., 2018). Recently, the Dimensions of Spirituality Inventory (Wildman et  al., 2024), which expands traditional definitions by incorporating diverse religious and spiritual traditions while avoiding culturally biased assumptions, was introduced. This tool aims to universally assess varied spiritual practices and is being adapted for Turkish cultural contexts to enhance the understanding of spirituality locally. Wildman et  al. (2024) summarized the diverse perspectives and confusion within the field with his Dimensions of Spirituality Inventory, introducing a measurement tool with cross-cultural validity to the literature. According to the “Perception of Religiosity in Turkey” report by the Ankara Institute and the Istanbul Policy Center, 92.3% of Turkish people identify as Muslim, with 86% expressing unwavering belief in the existence of God. Given Turkey’s diverse cultural landscape and high level of religiosity, it is essential to adapt a comprehensive inventory to measure spirituality in this context. Methods Study Group The scale adaptation study encompassed multiple phases and involved participants across four distinct demographic groups. Data for the research were gathered both online and through direct interpersonal interactions. The entire process of scale adaptation was predicated on volunteer participation, and informed consent was duly obtained from all contributors. In the phase dedicated to linguistic equivalence, data were sourced from 43 university students proficient in both English and Turkish. The construct validity phase involved a diverse sample of 671 adults, predominantly female (83.6%, n = 561) and a smaller male contingent (16.4%, n = 110). The sample included 69 individuals to assess criterion validity, with a distribution of 62 females and 7 males. The test–retest reliability study was conducted with 49 participants using convenience sampling. This method is noted for its practicality and cost- effectiveness in recruiting volunteers (Monette et  al., 1990). Data collection was 3108 Journal of Religion and Health (2025) 64:3105–3127 primarily conducted via Google Forms, an approach supported by research from Gosling et al. (2004), confirming that online data are generally as reliable and valid as those gathered through traditional methods. Demographic information about the participants in each group is given in Table 1. Process This study focuses on adapting the Dimensions of Spirituality Inventory to the Turkish version and evaluating its psychometric properties. Initially, permission was secured from the original scale developers, followed by ethical approval from the Marmara University Ethics Committee. All the data collected from the participants provided informed consent. The scale was adapted to Turkish by considering the steps recommended to be followed in the translation process of a spiritual scale (Koenig & Al Zaben, 2021). After the translation process was completed, psychometric validity studies of the scale were carried out. All the statistical analyses were not item-based but dimension-based, as in the original study. Thus, all the items were included in the analysis in five main dimensions. Translation Process During the translation process, weekly meetings were held between the researchers. The first phase involved linguistic equivalence testing, in which the original scale was translated into Turkish by 30 bilingual individuals. The translations were compared, and any differences were reconciled through discussion among the researchers. The reconciled version was back translated into English to ensure consistency. The Turkish version was generated by comparing the back translation, original version, and Turkish version. A two-step pilot study was conducted to examine the comprehensibility of the scale. The Turkish form was first reviewed by 11 adults, and their opinions on the comprehensibility of the scale items were reviewed. Adjustments were made to the form within the framework of their opinions. Subsequently, the comprehensibility of the scale was re-evaluated item by item by 14 different adults. Within the scope of the comments, definitions of some terms and how they can be interpreted by people Table 1 Demographic Group Gender Age N Total information of the participants Group 1 Female 19–70 561 671 CFA Male 110 Group 2 Female 21–34 35 43 Linguistic validity Male 7 Group 3 Female 19–67 62 69 Criterion validity Male 7 Group 4 Female 20–55 48 49 Reliability Male 1 Journal of Religion and Health (2025) 64:3105–3127 3109 with different beliefs were added to the explanation section of the scale. The Turk- ish version was proofread by a linguist who is fluent in Turkish and Turkish culture. Thus, the translation of the form into Turkish was completed. To assess linguistic equivalence, the finalized Turkish and the original English versions of the scale were administered to 43 bilingual participants at two-week intervals. The results of the linguistic equivalence analysis showed consistency between the English and Turkish forms and are described in the results section. Psychometric Validation Process For construct validity, data were collected from 671 participants and analyzed using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to establish the factor structure’s alignment with the original scale. The scale’s reliability was tested by administering it to 49 individuals twice, two weeks apart, and calculating test–retest reliability coefficients. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the scale was also calculated. Criterion validity was evaluated through correlations among the Spirituality Scale (Şirin, 2018), the Spiritual Transcendence Scale (İme et  al., 2019), the Mystical Experience Scale (Ünal, 2000), and the Intrinsic Spirituality Scale (Ekşi et  al., 2018). All validity analyses are described in the results section. Measures Dimensions of Spirituality Inventory. The Spirituality Inventory is the scale adapted for this study. It is a 53-item quantitative spirituality assessment with a 5-point Likert scale. It consists of 5 main dimensions and 21 subdimensions with 3 control items. Main dimensions and subdimensions: Value Ideals, Appreciating Beauty, Axiological Sensitivity, Ethical Growth, Kinesthetic/Kinaesthetic, Truth- Seeking. Belief and Belonging: Belief, Ritual, Religious Tradition. Mysticism: Awe, Mystery, Oneness-Unity, Oneness-Transcendence. Personal: Connection, Meaning, Nonconnectedness, Practices, Worship, Self-Discovery, Self-Transformation. Transcendent Beings; Dead Active, Divine Beings, Spiritual Beings. In the original study, the Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for the whole inventory was found to be r = 0.92 (Wildman et al., 2024). Spirituality Scale. The scale was developed for youth and adults to assess various dimensions of human spirituality, such as searching for the meaning of life, connection with the divine (transcendent), searching for the ultimate truth or the highest value, comprehending the mystery of creation, feeling of attachment to God, customization of belief, feeling of unity with the universe, and having 27 items and a 5-point Likert type. The scale consists of a total of seven factors, and the fit values obtained as a result of confirmatory factor analysis are appropriate. The reliability of the scale was as follows: Cronbach’s alpha, 0.90; Guttman, 0.91; Spearman-Brown, 0.89; and test–retest reliability coefficient, r = 0.95 (Şirin, 2018). In the current study, the Cronbach’s alpha values for the scale were 0.84 for the total scale, 0.88 for connection, 0.80 for spiritual life, 0.47 for harmony with nature, 0.41 for spiritual 3110 Journal of Religion and Health (2025) 64:3105–3127 fulfillment, 0.56 for searching for the meaning of life, 0.71 for transcendence, and 0.63 for spiritual coping. Spiritual Transcendence Scale. The Spiritual Transcendence Scale developed by Piedmont (1999) and adapted by Ime (2019), which aims to determine individuals’ spiritual transcendence level, consists of 24 items and is scored on a 5-point Likert scale. Universality, connectedness, and worship satisfaction represent the subdimensions of the scale. The internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s alpha coefficient) is 0.90 for the overall scale, 0.84 for the subdimensions of worship satisfaction, 0.91 for universality, and 0.93 for connectedness. In this study, the Cronbach’s alpha value of the scale was found to be 0.81 for the overall scale, 0.61 for satisfaction with worship, 0.81 for universality, and 0.45 for connectedness subdimensions (İme et al., 2019). The Mysticism Scale. The scale developed by Hood (1975) and adapted by Ünal (2000), which aims to measure individuals’ mystical experience levels, consists of 32 items in a 5-point Likert format, 16 of which are positive and 16 of which are negative. A high score on the mystical experience scale indicates a high level of mystical experience (Ünal, 2000). In this study, Cronbach’s alpha was found to be 0.93 for the overall scale. Intrinsic Spirituality Scale. The intrinsic spirituality scale was developed by Hodge (2003) and adapted by Ekşi et  al. (2018). Inner spirituality refers to one’s relationship with God and ultimate transcendence. It is a 10-point Likert-type scale with a total of 6 items with a single factor. There are no reverse-scored items on the scale. A higher total score obtained from the scale indicates that the individual’s inner spirituality is high. Confirmatory factor analyses revealed that the fit indices were acceptable. Cronbach’s alpha internal consistency coefficient was calculated to test reliability. According to the reliability analyses, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the whole scale was 0.95. (Ekşi et al., 2018). In this study, the Cronbach’s alpha value was calculated as 0.94. Results Linguistic Validity During the adaptation of the Dimensions of Spirituality Inventory into Turkish, initial studies focusing on linguistic validity were conducted. Both the Turkish and English versions of the inventory were administered to a bilingual cohort of 43 individuals who were proficient in both languages, with a two-week interval between sessions. The analysis of linguistic validity was performed using correlation values and paired t-tests across the two administrations, and the results are detailed in Table 2. In the realm of linguistic validity, comparative analysis using the t test revealed no statistically significant disparity in the mean scores between the English and Turk- ish versions of the inventory (t = 42; p < 0.001). Furthermore, a robust positive cor- relation was observed between these versions, as indicated by a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.91 (p < 0.001). Moreover, the analysis extended to the subdimensions Journal of Religion and Health (2025) 64:3105–3127 3111 Table 2 Linguistic validity of the dimensions of spirituality inventory Inventory Application X̄ SD t sd p r Value English form 48.41 8.69 − .851 42 .399 .88* Turkish form 48.95 7.98 Belief English form 20.41 5.43 − .189 42 .851 .81* Turkish form 20.51 4.94 Mystical English form 35.60 6.44 .801 42 .427 .79* Turkish form 35.11 5.56 Personal English form 49.58 8.73 − .887 42 .380 .89* Turkish form 50.11 7.78 Transcendent English form 20.18 5.07 − .772 42 .444 .90* Turkish form 20.44 4.96 DSI Total English form 174.20 28.20 − .539 42 .593 .91* Turkish form 175.13 24.52 *p < .001 of ‘Value’, ‘Belief’, ‘Mystical’, ‘Personal’, and ‘Transcendent’ within the Turkish version of the DSI compared against scores from the original English format. The results showed no significant differences in the mean scores. Consistently, the Pear- son correlation coefficients for these subdimensions confirmed significant and sub- stantial relationships across the board. According to the findings obtained, the scale yields similar results in both languages and has linguistic equivalence. Construct Validity CFA was conducted to measure the construct validity of the Turkish version of the inventory. The fit values obtained after the analysis revealed which is given in the Table 3 that the Turkish version of the inventory had acceptable fit indices (Hu & Bentler, 1999; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001, 2013). The five-dimensional structure of the inventory in the Turkish sample and the factor loadings of the items are given in Fig. 1. Table 3 The fit values obtained Fit indices Value after the CFA χ2/sd 4.29 RMSEA .070 GFI .88 AGFI .85 CFI .92 TLI .91 RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation, GFI, goodness- of-fit index, AGFI, adjusted goodness-of-fit index, CFI, comparative fit index, TLI, tucker-lewis index 3112 Journal of Religion and Health (2025) 64:3105–3127 Fig. 1 Confirmatory factor analysis model and standardized item factor loads of the DSI As illustrated in Fig.  1, the factor loadings for the inventory items range from 0.42 to 0.90, indicating a substantial alignment with the respective factors. Specifi- cally, within the ‘Values’ subdimension (F1), loadings vary between 0.42 and 0.90. For the ‘Belief’ subdimension (F2), the range is 0.50 to 0.85; for the ‘Mystical’ subdimension (F3), it is 0.44 to 0.80; for the ‘Personal’ subdimension (F4), 0.76 to 0.89; and for the ‘Transcendence’ subdimension (F5), 0.60 to 0.65. These fac- tor loadings robustly reflect the extent to which items correlate with their respective underlying constructs. The obtained factor loadings and CFA fit indices comply with the criteria indicating that the model provides an excellent or acceptable fit. According to the fit Journal of Religion and Health (2025) 64:3105–3127 3113 index evaluation criteria in the literature (Kline, 2005; Schumacker & Lomax, 2010; Sümer, 2000; Schermelleh-Engel et  al., 2003; Hu & Bentler, 1999; Byrne, 2010), the Turkish version of the DSI is psychometrically reliable and valid. Criterion Validity To examine the criterion-related validity of the Dimensions of Spirituality Inventory, two subdimensions of the Mysticism Scale (MES2 and MES5), which are the “informational religious quality factor that leaves a positive impression” and the “sense of divine perfection factor”, two subdimensions of the Spirituality Scale, namely, “Spiritual Coping” and “Search for Meaning” (SSC and SSM); two subdimensions of the Spiritual Transcendence Scale, namely, “Universality” and “Satisfaction with Worship” (STSU and STSS); and the Intrinsic Spirituality Scale (ISS), were utilized. The correlation values between the scores obtained from the scales are presented in Table 4. Table  4 shows that the “Belief and Belonging” dimension of the Spirituality Dimensions Inventory’s “Belief and Belonging” dimension is positively correlated with the subdimensions of the Mysticism Scale, namely, “the factor of informational religious quality that leaves a positive impression” and (r = 0.35; p < 0.01), the factor of sense of divine perfection” (r = 0.308; p < 0.01), “Spiritual Coping” (r = 0.61; p < 0.01) and “Search for Meaning” (r = 0.46; p < 0.01), which are the subdimensions of the Spirituality Scale; “Universality” (r = 0.50; p < 0.01) and “Satisfaction with Worship” (r = 0.50; p < 0.01) of the Spiritual Transcendence Scale. The “Value Ideals” dimension is related to the subdimensions of the Mysticism Scale, namely, “the factor of informational religious quality that leaves a positive impression” (r = 0.49; p < 0.01) and “the factor of sense of divine perfection” (r = 0.453; p < 0.01); the subdimensions of the Spirituality Scale, namely, “Spiritual Coping” (r = . 59; p < 0.01) and “Search for Meaning” (r = 0.32; p < 0.01); “Universality” Table 4 Correlation analysis results between scales M SD MES2 MES5 SSC SSM ISS STSU STSS M 17.91 7.27 21.13 18.53 45.97 34.37 33.20 SD 4.72 1.51 2.43 1.74 16.80 3.93 4.00 Belief and belonging 22.73 3.21 .352** .308** .617** .463** .136 .509** .507** Value ideals 52.76 6.68 .497** .453** .594** .328** .272* .569** .503** Mystical 39.69 4.96 .268* .291* .705** .406** .266* .466** .373** Personal 56.76 6.61 .415** .422** .809** .594** .304* .611** .619** Transcendent beings 19.49 6.62 .397** .468** .466** .475** .136 .375** .306* MES2, Factor of informational religious quality leaving a positive impact, MES5, Sense of divine perfection factor, SSC, Spiritual Coping, SSM, The Search for Meaning, ISS, Intrinsic Spirituality Scale, STSU, Universality, STSS, Satisfaction with Worship *p < .05, **p < .01 3114 Journal of Religion and Health (2025) 64:3105–3127 (r = 0.56; p < 0.01) and “Satisfaction with Worship” (r = 0.50; p < 0.01) of the Spiritual Transcendence Scale; and the overall Inner Spirituality Scale (r = 0.27; p < 0.05). The “mystical” dimension is related to the subdimensions of the Mysticism Scale, namely, “the factor of informational religious quality that leaves a positive impres- sion” (r = 0.26; p < 0.05) and “the factor of the sense of divine perfection” (r = 0.29; p < 0.05); the subdimensions of the Spirituality Scale, namely, “spiritual coping” (r = . 70; p < 0.01) and “Search for Meaning” (r = 0.40; p < 0.01); “Universality” (r = 0.46; p < 0.01) and “Satisfaction with Worship” (r = 0.37; p < 0.01) of the Spiritual Tran- scendence Scale; and the overall Inner Spirituality Scale (r = 0.26; p < 0.05). The “Personal” dimension is related to the subdimensions of the Mysticism Scale, namely, “the factor of informational religious quality that leaves a positive impact” (r = 0.41; p < 0.01) and “the factor of the sense of divine perfection” (r = 0.42; p < 0.01); the subdimensions of the Spirituality Scale, namely, “Spiritual Coping” (r = . 80; p < 0.01) and “Search for Meaning” (r = 0.59; p < 0.01); “Universality” (r = 0.61; p < 0.01) and “Satisfaction with Worship” (r = 0.61; p < 0.01) of the Spiritual Transcendence Scale; and the overall Inner Spirituality Scale (r = 0.30; p < 0.05). The “Transcendent Beings” dimension, on the other hand, has a positive effect on the subdimensions of the Mysticism Scale, namely, the “informational religious quality factor that leaves a positive impression” (r = 0.39; p < 0.01) and the “sense of divine perfection factor” (r = 0.46; p < 0.01); the subdimensions of the Spirituality Scale, namely, “Spiritual Coping” (r = . 46; p < 0.01), “Search for Meaning” (r = 0.47; p < 0.01), “Universality” (r = 0.37; p < 0.01) and “Satisfaction with Worship” (r = 0.30; p < 0.05) of the Spiritual Transcendence Scale. Reliability Test–retest reliability analysis was conducted in the scope of reliability studies. To evaluate the consistency of the Turkish version of the DSI over time, the Turkish version of the DSI was administered to a group of 49 participants at two-week intervals. The mean scores, standard deviations and t-test results obtained between the first and second administrations revealed consistently high levels of reliability, with Pearson correlation coefficients ranging from 0.35 to 0.78 for the various dimensions of the inventory. In particular, the correlations observed for the Personal and Transcendent dimensions suggest that these dimensions of the inventory are quite stable over time. The findings of the test–retest analysis are presented in Table 5. In addition to the test–retest reliability, Cronbach’s alpha values were calculated. Cronbach’s alpha values of Personal, Value, Mystical, Belief, and Transcendence dimensions were found to be 0.83, 0.76, 0.69, 0.55, and 0.24 respectively. The overall inventory exhibited a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.90. Discussion This study aimed to adapt the Dimensions of Spirituality Inventory (DSI) scale, developed by Wildman et al. (2024), to Turkish to measure spirituality through five subdimensions and 50 questions. The translation process involved 30 experts in Journal of Religion and Health (2025) 64:3105–3127 3115 Table 5 The dimensions of sprituality inventory—Turkish form test–retest reliability Scale Application X̄ SD t sd p r Value Pretest 54.75 6.00 − .026 48 .000 .62** Posttest 54.77 6.46 Belief Pretest 23.71 3.60 − .350 48 .012 .35* Posttest 23.91 3.58 Mystical Pretest 40.51 4.62 − .483 48 .000 .65** Posttest 40.79 5.23 Personal Pretest 59.22 6.50 2.102 48 .000 .68** Posttest 57.71 6.01 Transcendent Pretest 22.95 3.22 .243 48 .000 .78** Posttest 22.87 3.73 DSI Total Pretest 201.16 18.19 .547 48 .000 .74** Posttest 200.08 20.30 *p < .05, **p < .001 English and Turkish, followed by back-translation process. The final Turkish ver- sion underwent validity and reliability testing. CFA confirmed the five dimensions of the original scale, Cronbach’s alpha was calculated as 0.90, suggesting high reli- ability. Only the reliability of the Transcendence dimension was found to be low (α = 0.24). In the analyses conducted to examine the reasons; it was determined that the reliability would increase by removing the Dead Active items in this dimension (α = 0.56). Since the comprehensibility of the items was not found to be problematic in linguistic analysis studies, it was decided to keep the items in the scale in order not to disrupt the integrity of the scale. The criterion validity study examined the relationship between the DSI and other spirituality scales, such as the Mysticism Scale, Spirituality Scale, Intrinsic Spirituality Scale, and Spiritual Transcendence Scale. Positive correlations supported the theoretical framework, indicating that the Turkish DSI effectively measures the subdimensions of spirituality. Traditional research has focused primarily on religion or religiosity, with spirituality used to describe both mystical and nonreligious practices (Pargament, 2023). These findings affirm that spirituality can be measured multi-dimensionally. Challenges in Measuring Spirituality One significant challenge in measuring spirituality is determining whether it should be conceptualized as a singular construct or a multidimensional phenomenon. Research indicates that spirituality is not perceived as a universal truth (Ammerman, 2013; Eisenmann et  al., 2016; Steensland et  al., 2018; Zinnbauer et  al., 1997). Various definitions and tools for measuring spirituality exist. For instance, Elkins et  al. (1988) concluded that spirituality is a multidimensional structure consisting of nine components. The Spiritual Orientation Inventory (SOI), similar to the DSI, includes subdimensions such as the Transcendent dimension and Meaning and Purpose in Life, which correspond to the Transcendent Beings and Personal 3116 Journal of Religion and Health (2025) 64:3105–3127 subdimensions of the DSI. Many studies that view spirituality as independent of religion and religiosity use the SOI to measure humanistic spirituality, which focuses on individual experiences and personal growth without reference to religious doctrines or institutions (Lazar, 2021). Nevertheless, scales based on religiosity and religion have also been designed. Given that there are approximately 2 billion Muslims in the world, there has been a concerted effort to create measurement tools that comprehensively represent the affective (attitudes), cognitive (beliefs), and behavioral (practices) aspects of religiosity. One notable example is the Psychological Measure of Islamic Religiousness (PMIR) scale (Abu-Raiya et al., 2008). Unlike many scales designed for specific ethnic or national Muslim populations, the PMIR scale has been employed in research samples across various cross-cultural settings, demonstrating its broader applicability (Amer, 2021). The adaptation and validation of the DSI scale for a Muslim population and its translation into Turkish are significant within the context of the literature, as these efforts enhance the relevance of spirituality measures across different Muslim cultural settings. Spirituality and Mental Health Counseling The significance of spirituality in addressing mental health challenges has been increasingly recognized. Since most individuals possess some level of religious or spiritual (RS) values, beliefs, or practices that are shaped by their diverse backgrounds, experiences, and identities—and these RS factors can impact their mental health either as a source of strength or challenge—it is essential for mental health professionals to gain a deeper understanding of how clients perceive the integration of RS in their treatment by their providers (Oxhandler et  al., 2024). Coppola et al. (2021), during the COVID-19 pandemic, highlighted the connection between spiritual practices and psychological well-being. Research by Karki et al. (2024) explored the relationship between spirituality and mental health across different cultural contexts, including Turkey. Their findings suggest that spirituality and religiosity are linked to reduced symptoms of depression and enhanced life satisfaction. These correlations imply that spiritual beliefs and practices may serve as valuable resources for coping with depressive symptoms and improving overall emotional well-being. With this adaptation of the DSI scale, it is possible to define and measure spirituality on a national basis in Turkey. This study will support academic and practical studies in psychological counseling, particularly in spirituality. Many scientific studies on spirituality and religiosity have been conducted worldwide, especially in the last 20 years. The role of spirituality in psychological counseling and psychotherapy has gained attention (Shafranske, 2024; Şahin & Okan, 2024). Data from English-speaking Muslims highlight the need to integrate religious and spiritual dimensions into psychological counseling frameworks. According to research conducted by Umarji and Islam (2024), intolerance to uncertainty is identified as the predominant predictor of psychological distress, particularly associated with conditions such as anxiety and depression. In contrast, religiosity is recognized as the most influential predictor of positive psychological outcomes, Journal of Religion and Health (2025) 64:3105–3127 3117 such as life satisfaction, well-being, and a sense of purpose. Furthermore, religious doubts are found to significantly impact multiple mental health outcomes. This complexity underlines the necessity of quantifying religiosity to fully comprehend its effects on mental health. With increasing interest in spirituality and mental health, the use of spirituality in the psychological counseling process is beneficial for some clients (Captari et al., 2018; Okan et al., 2024; Post & Wade, 2009). In clients with strong religious and spiritual commitment and engagement in psychological counseling and psychotherapy, therapies focusing on religious and spiritual issues are more effective than those without a religious or spiritual orientation (Bouwhuis-Van Keulen et al., 2024). Implicitly or explicitly, spiritual issues are often brought into therapy. Spirituality can be experienced in listening to music, the smile of a stranger, the color of the sky, or gratitude for waking up each day. Conversely, spirituality can also be felt in moments of loss, questioning life’s purpose, feeling abandoned, or facing injustice (Pargament, 2011). The items “contemplating beautiful art or music is profoundly spiritually moving and deeply spiritual for me” from the “Appreciating Beauty” subdimension of the DSI are indicative of valid structural features in understanding spirituality (Wildman et  al., 2024). However, counselors or therapists may be unaware of other dimensions of spirituality contributing to the therapeutic process, often due to a lack of preparedness to discuss spirituality with clients. Studies indicate that mental health professionals often have incomplete knowledge about the distinctions and commonalities between “religion,” “religiosity,” and “spirituality” (Da Cunha et  al., 2024; Okan & Şahin, 2024). This lack of clarity can result in spirituality being neglected or rarely addressed in therapy sessions, impacting session effectiveness, client rapport, and therapist behavior. Increasing numbers of people in the West identify as “spiritual but not religious,” emphasizing the need to understand cultural and geographical influences on health outcomes related to spirituality. This necessitates considering area-level religious constructs, such as affiliations and community structures, to establish causal relationships between spirituality and health. Additionally, investigating the impact of religiosity and spirituality on psychological health using contemporary scales is crucial (Ransome, 2020). There is a consensus among mental health professionals on the need for training programs to enhance religious/spiritual (R/S) competencies. Vieten et  al. (2023) found that most practitioners support the inclusion of competencies to address religious and spiritual struggles and help clients access their R/S strengths. However, one-fifth reported discomfort with these competencies in their professional development. Understanding the subdimensions of spirituality and utilizing the DSI can enhance the effectiveness of psychological counseling sessions. Along with this, effective training in religious and spiritual (RS) integration is essential for mental health professionals to avoid potentially harmful practices and ensure respectful, client-centered care. Common harmful practices include a lack of openness to the client’s RS, imposing their own RS beliefs. Additionally, therapists may exhibit bias against or completely avoid addressing RS, leaving clients feeling disregarded or misunderstood (Oxhandler et al., 2024). Therefore, understanding the subdimensions of spirituality and utilizing the DSI can enhance the effectiveness of psychological counseling sessions. By also increasing spirituality awareness, 3118 Journal of Religion and Health (2025) 64:3105–3127 negative outcomes on both the counselor and client sides can be reduced. This study aimed to assess the suitability of these dimensions within Turkish culture and provide an inventory for mental health professionals to use in their practice. Limitations There may be a risk of contamination in scales that aim to measure spirituality and religion. As highlighted by Koenig and Carey (2024, 2025) and Bambling (2025), contamination occurs when scales ostensibly measuring religious or spiritual constructs also include items indicative of mental or social health (e.g., meaning, peace, social connectivity). This overlap can lead to tautological associations and artificially inflated correlations, thus reducing the clarity and validity of the findings. In our adapted measure, while the subscale names might initially suggest a contamination risk, item-level analysis indicates they were designed to capture spiritual dimensions directly rather than overall well-being or social connectedness. Nonetheless, researchers should remain mindful of potential contamination and consider the preventative strategies outlined by Koenig and Carey (2025) in future applications. One of the limitations of this study is the relatively high number of items (53 items in total), which may seem lengthy and time-consuming to participants. An extensive item set may lead to participant fatigue and reduced engagement, affecting the overall quality and generalizability of the data. Future research could consider developing and validating a shorter version of the scale to maintain psychometric rigor while increasing applicability and participant agreement. Test–retest analyses indicate that the overall scale meets the reliability standard of 0.70 or above, and that most subscales similarly exhibit sufficient test–retest correlations. However, the correlations for the Belief subscale (0.35) and, to some extent, the Value subscale (0.62) falling below 0.70 suggest relatively weaker temporal stability in these dimensions. Additionally, factors such as participants’ recall of previous responses, the relatively short interval between test administrations, and the limited nature of the sample may have influenced the reliability coefficients obtained. Therefore, it is recommended that these findings be replicated over longer time intervals and with different samples to further establish their robustness. In this study, data collection was designed to minimize biases, but it is challenging to capture all facets of spirituality due to its personal nature. The scale may not thoroughly reflect participants’ perceptions of spirituality. Since this instrument Journal of Religion and Health (2025) 64:3105–3127 3119 measures various aspects of spirituality, some of the less common specific sub- dimensions (e.g. Dead Active) may not have appealed to the current study group. These dimensions are thought to provide valuable data in some areas of Turkey that this study could not include. CFA was used to validate the subdimensions of spirituality, consistent with the methodologies used by the developers of the scale. However, reapplication of exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is necessary to address cultural suitability and unexpected structural findings. Future Research Further research is needed to investigate the effectiveness of individual DSI scale items and to create culturally valid item groupings, especially for samples from Islamic traditions. Identifying cultural equivalents for certain subdimensions presents notable challenges. Future studies should explore the relationship between the Turkish form of the DSI and various positive psychology concepts and psychopathological conditions. The development of practical guidelines for mental health professionals to incorporate spirituality and religion into their practice is recommended. This may lead to research on the benefits of religious or spiritual activities as coping strategies. Conclusion Our evidence supports the psychometric validity of the DSI-Turkish form in a heterogeneous group of Turkish participants. Future research is recommended to confirm our findings and to identify the extent of spiritual needs in individuals who prioritize spiritual well-being. This study’s findings highlight the necessity for culturally sensitive tools to capture the diverse expressions of spirituality across different cultural settings. This contribution is expected to enhance both academic and practical applications in the field of psychological counseling in Turkey, particularly concerning spirituality. Appendix 1 See Table 6. 3120 Journal of Religion and Health (2025) 64:3105–3127 Table 6 Items of the dimensions of spirituality inventory (Wildman et al., 2024) Item code Item statement (EN-TR) Subdimensions Main dimensions m1 Usually, when I feel most spiritually alert, I am also intensely aware of my body. (Manevî olarak aktif olduğum Kinesthetic/kinaesthetic Value ideals zamanlarda—meditasyon uygulamaları gibi- genellikle bedenimin de yoğun bir şekilde farkında olurum.) m49 My spirituality involves striving to maintain continual awareness of my body while performing my daily activities. Kinesthetic/kinaesthetic (Maneviyatım, günlük işlerimi yaparken, bedenim üzerine daimî bir farkındalığı koruma çabasını içerir.) m16 Contemplating beautiful art or music is profoundly spiritually moving for me. (Benim için sanattaki veya müzikteki Appreciating beauty güzelliği derinlemesine deneyimlemek son derece manevîdir.) m48 Intense experiences of beauty in art or music are deeply spiritual for me. (Güzel bir sanat eseri ya da müzik üzerine Appreciating beauty tefekkür etmek/düşünmek beni manevî anlamda derinden etkiler.) m14 My spirituality draws me toward beautiful art and music. (Maneviyatım beni güzel olan sanat eserlerine ve müziğe Appreciating beauty çeker.) m34 When I am not spiritually attuned, I fail to appreciate the value of the people and things around me. (Manevî insicam/ Axiological sensitivity uyum yakalamadığımda, etrafımdaki insanlar ve diğer şeylerin kıymetini takdir etmekte başarısız olurum.) m29 My appreciation for people and things around me rises and falls with my spiritual vitality. (Etrafımdaki insanların ve Axiological sensitivity diğer şeylerin kıymetine olan takdirim, manevi şevkimle/ canlılığımla birlikte artar veya azalır.) m13 My spirituality increases my gratitude for the people and things in my life. (Maneviyatım, hayatımdaki insanlara ve Axiological sensitivity diğer şeylere duyduğum şükranı artırır.) m35 When I am spiritually attuned, I find it easier and more natural to be an ethical person. (Manevî insicam/uyum Ethical growth yakaladığımda, etik bir insan olmak daha kolay ve doğal gelir.) m41 Due to spiritual insights, I have adopted ethical standards for myself that are higher than those I previously adhered Ethical growth to. (Manevî içgörü/farkındalıklar sayesinde, kendim için daha önce bağlı olduğumdan daha yüksek ahlaki ilkeler benimsemiş oldum.) m51 My spirituality makes me a better person. (Maneviyatım beni daha iyi bir insan yapıyor.) Ethical growth m17 My spirituality increases my desire for intellectual understanding. (Maneviyatım, entelektüel kavrayışa olan arzumu Truth seeking arttırır.) m33 Pursuing intellectual understanding is a central part of my spirituality. (Entelektüel kavrayışın peşinde olmak Truth seeking maneviyatımın merkezi bir parçasıdır.) m44 Pursuing intellectual understanding is not central to my spirituality. (Entelektüel kavrayışın peşinde olmak Truth seeking maneviyatımın merkezi bir parçası değildir.) m32 Most of my deepest personal relationships have been formed in spiritual communities. (En samimi kişisel ilişkilerimin Connection Personal çoğu, manevî topluluklarda kurulmuştur.) Journal of Religion and Health (2025) 64:3105–3127 3121 Table 6 (continued) Item code Item statement (EN-TR) Subdimensions Main dimensions m42 Connection to my spiritual community is essential to my spiritual fulfillment. (Manevi topluluğuma olan aidiyetim, Connection manevî doyumumda esastır.) m38 Connection to my spiritual community is not essential to my spiritual fulfillment. (Manevi topluluğuma olan aidiyetim Connection manevî doyumumda esas değildir.) m7 My spirituality provides the deepest meaning and purpose in my life. (Maneviyatım hayatımdaki en yüce anlamı ve Meaning amacı sağlar.) m36 My spirituality gives my life a clear sense of meaning and direction. (Maneviyatım hayatıma açık/net bir anlam ve Meaning istikamet katar.) m43 My spirituality helps me to accept change, even when change is painful. (Maneviyatım, acı verici olsa bile değişimi Nonattachment kabul etmeme yardımcı olur.) m27 Accepting change, even when it is difficult, is vital to my spirituality. (Zor olsa bile değişimi kabul etmek, maneviyatım Nonattachment için hayatî önem taşır.) m37 Accepting change, even when it is difficult, is not central to my spirituality. (Zor olsa bile değişimi kabul etmek, Nonattachment maneviyatımın merkezinde yer almaz.) m6 Making habits out of spiritual disciplines such as meditation, prayer, study, or self-reflection is the key to my Practices spiritual development. (Meditasyon, dua veya kendi üzerine düşünme / nefis muhasebesi gibi manevi disiplinlerden alışkanlıklar edinmek manevi gelişimimin anahtarıdır.) m40 Personal practices such as meditation, prayer, study, or self-reflection are absolutely necessary for my spiritual Practices life. (Meditasyon, dua, kendi üzerine düşünme /nefis muhasebesi gibi kişisel uygulamalar, manevî hayatım için gereklidir.) m10 Finding my true self is the key to spiritual fulfillment. (Gerçek benliğimi bulmak, manevî doyuma ulaşmamın Self-discovery anahtarıdır.) m12 My spirituality focuses on discovering my truest, deepest self. (Maneviyatım, benliğimin en hakikî, en derin hâlini Self-discovery keşfetmeyi hedefler.) m45 My spirituality helps change my behavior for the better. (Maneviyatım, davranışlarımı daha iyi yönde değiştirmeme Self-transformation yardım eder.) 3122 Journal of Religion and Health (2025) 64:3105–3127 Table 6 (continued) Item code Item statement (EN-TR) Subdimensions Main dimensions m20 Due to my spirituality, I have been transformed into a better person. (Maneviyatım sayesinde daha iyi bir insana Self-transformation dönüştüm.) m39 My life would be much harder without spiritual beliefs that guide me. (Bana rehberlik eden manevî inançlarım Belief Belief and belonging olmasaydı hayatım çok daha zor olurdu.) m53 I need core spiritual beliefs if my life is to have structure and direction. (Hayatımda düzen ve istikamet için temel Belief manevi inançlara ihtiyaç duyarım.) m50 Traditional rituals enhance my spiritual life in profound and powerful ways. (Geleneksel ritüeller/âdetler manevi Ritual yaşamımı derin ve güçlü bir şekilde artırır.) m46 Traditional rituals hinder my spiritual life more than they help it. (Geleneksel ritüeller/âdetler manevî hayatımı Ritual desteklemekten ziyade engeller.) m47 My religious tradition guides my spiritual journey. (Dinî geleneğim manevî serüvenime rehberlik eder.) Religous tradition m23 My spirituality and my religious tradition are intertwined. (Maneviyatım ve dinî geleneğim iç içe geçmiştir.) Religous tradition m31 Awe before the overwhelming immensity of cosmic reality is spiritually vital for me. (Kâinatın insanı hayrete düşüren Awe Mysticism sonsuzluğu karşısında huşu duymak benim için manevî açıdan hayatî önem taşır.) m3 Hayatımı, kâinatın sonsuz okyanusunda tek bir su damlası olarak düşünmek beni hayret duygusuyla doldurur. Awe (Picturing my life as (continued) a single drop of water in the endless ocean of cosmic reality fills me with a sense of wonder.) m8 Contemplating the awesome vastness of the cosmos is spiritually energizing to me. (Evrenin muazzam enginliğini Awe tefekkür etmek/düşünmek manevi şevkimi artırır.) m4 The deepest spiritual questions are too mysterious for human beings to answer. (En derin manevî sorular insanlığın Mystery yanıtlayamayacağı kadar gizemlidir.) m11 No human being can answer all of the spiritual questions that matter to us. (Hiçbir insan, bizim için önem taşıyan Mystery manevî soruların tümüne cevap veremez.) m9 My spirituality increases my sense that reality is fundamentally mysterious. (Maneviyatım, gerçekliğin özünde gizemli Mystery olduğuna dair hissiyatımı artırır.) m30 My spirituality involves a growing sense of being one with all things. (Maneviyatım, her şeyle bir olma duygusunun Oneness-unity giderek artmasını içerir.) m18 My spirituality gives me a feeling of unity with all of reality. (Maneviyatım bana bütün gerçeklikle bir olma duygusu Oneness-unity verir.) Journal of Religion and Health (2025) 64:3105–3127 3123 Table 6 (continued) Item code Item statement (EN-TR) Subdimensions Main dimensions m19 My spirituality involves potent experiences of transcendence. (Maneviyatım güçlü aşkınlık deneyimleri içerir.) Oneness-transcendence m25 My spirituality does not involve potent experiences of transcendence. (Maneviyatım güçlü aşkınlık deneyimleri Oneness-transcendence içermez.) m15 I believe we are immersed in a realm of unseen spiritual powers, both good and bad. (Gözle görünmeyen hem iyi hem Spiritual beings Transcendent beings de kötü ruhanî güçlerin olduğu bir âlemle iç içe olduğumuza inanıyorum.) m28 In order to make sense of the world, I need to recognize the power of both good and evil spirits. (Dünyayı Spiritual beings anlamlandırabilmek için hem iyi hem de kötü ruhların gücünü kabul etmem gerekir.) m52 My spirituality is perfectly meaningful without any Divine being. (Herhangi bir ilahî varlık olmadan da maneviyatım Divine beings son derece anlamlıdır.) m26 My spiritual experiences tend to involve sensing the presence of the Divine. (Manevî deneyimlerimin çoğunda İlahî Divine beings olanın huzurunda bulunduğumu hissederim.) m24 I believe the dead are not gone but directly influence the living. (Ölülerin bu dünyadan gitmediğine ve yaşayanlara Dead active doğrudan etki edebildiklerine inanıyorum.) m22 I believe the dead are gone and have no direct influence on the living. (Ölülerin bu dünyadan gittiğine ve yaşayanlara Dead active doğrudan bir etkilerinin olmadığına inanıyorum.) m2 Under ordinary circumstances, and all things being equal, rich people should be considered spiritually superior to poor Control and calibration items people. (Diğer tüm şartların aynı olduğu varsayılırsa, zengin insanlar fakir insanlardan manevî anlamda üstün sayılmalıdır.) m5 Under ordinary circumstances, and all things being equal, it is better to be kind than cruel. (Diğer tüm şartların aynı olduğu varsayılırsa, şefkatli olmak gaddar olmaktan daha iyidir.) m21 Under ordinary circumstances, and all things being equal, physically attractive people should be considered spiritually superior to unattractive people. (Diğer tüm şartların aynı olduğu varsayılırsa, bedenen güzel insanların, güzel olmayan insanlardan manevî olarak üstün olduğu düşünülmelidir.) 3124 Journal of Religion and Health (2025) 64:3105–3127 Author Contributions All authors contributed to the study conception, design, data collection, analysis, and writing. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.” Statement on Replication Because of ethical considerations and Institutional Review Board constraints, the data used in this study will not be made available. This study is not a direct replication of a previously published empirical investigation in terms of data collection or findings. However, it involves the cross-cultural adaptation and validation of a psychological instrument originally developed by Wildman et al. (2024). The primary aim is to examine the psychometric properties of the original scale within a Turkish sample and assess its linguistic and cultural appropriateness. Therefore, although grounded in the theoretical and methodological foundations of the original work, this study does not constitute a direct replication. Funding Open access funding provided by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Türkiye (TÜBİTAK). There are no funding sources to report. Declarations Conflict of interests The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose. Ethical Approval This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Approval was granted by the Ethics Committee of University B (Date: 02/14/2024/No: 737999). Consent to Participate Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Com- mons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. References Abu-Raiya, H., Pargament, K. I., Mahoney, A., & Stein, C. (2008). A psychological measure of Islamic religiousness: Development and evidence for reliability and validity. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 18(4), 291–315. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10508 61080 22292 70 Amer, M. M. (2021). Measures of Muslim religiousness constructs and a multidimensional scale. In A. L. Ai, P. Wink, R. F. Paloutzian, & K. A. Harris (Eds.), Assessing spirituality in a diverse world. Springer. Ammerman, N. T. (2013). Sacred stories, spiritual tribes: Finding religion in everyday life. Oxford University Press. Bambling, M. (2025). The problem of scale contamination and construct validity in mental health, social science and spirituality-related research. Health and Social Care Chaplaincy, 12(2), 210– 216. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1558/ hscc. 31277 Benner, D. G. (1989). Toward a psychology of spirituality: Implications for personality and psycho- therapy. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 8(1), 19–30. Bouwhuis-Van Keulen, A. J., Koelen, J., Eurelings-Bontekoe, L., Hoekstra-Oomen, C., & Glas, G. (2024). The evaluation of religious and spirituality-based therapy compared to standard treat- ment in mental health care: A multi-level meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Psycho- therapy Research, 34(3), 339–352. https:// doi. org/ 10.1 080/ 10503 307. 2023. 22416 26 Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). London. Captari, L. E., Hook, J. N., Hoyt, W., Davis, D. E., McElroy-Heltzel, S. E., & Worthington, E. L., Jr. (2018). Integrating clients’ religion and spirituality within psychotherapy: A comprehensive meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 74(11), 1938–1951. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ jclp. 22681 Journal of Religion and Health (2025) 64:3105–3127 3125 Coppola, I., Rania, N., Parisi, R., & Lagomarsino, F. (2021). Spiritual well-being and mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy. Frontiers in Psychiatry. https:// doi. org/1 0. 3389/f psyt. 2021. 626944 Da Cunha, V. F., Feliciano, T. A. S., & Scorsolini-Comin, F. (2024). Religion, religiosity, and spiritu- ality: Conceptual differences in Brazilian psychotherapists’ point of view. Counseling and Psy- chotherapy Research, 24(1), 241–249. https://d oi.o rg/1 0. 1002/c apr. 12639 Eisenmann, C., Klein, C., Swhajor-Biesemann, A., Drexelius, U., Keller, B., & Streib, H. (2016). Dimensions of “Spirituality”: The semantics of subjective definitions. In Semantics and Psychol- ogy of Spirituality. https://d oi.o rg/1 0. 1007/9 78-3- 319- 21245-6_9 Ekşi, H., Kardaş, S., & Akyol Koçoğlu, T. (2018). İçsel spiritüellik ölçeği: Geçerlik ve güvenir- lik çalışması [Intrinsic spirituality scale: Validity and reliability study]. In B. Yıldırım (Ed.), Uluslararası bilim, teknoloji, mühendislik, matematik (STEM) ve eğitim bilimleri kongresi pro- ceeding book (s. 105). Elkins, D. N., Hedstrom, L. J., Hughes, L. L., Leaf, J. A., & Saunders, C. (1988). Toward a human- istic-phenomenological spirituality. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 28(4), 5–18. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00221 67888 284002 Emmons, R. A., & Paloutzian, R. F. (2003). The psychology of religion. Annual Review of Psychol- ogy, 54, 377–402. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1146/ annure v. psych. 54. 101601. 145024 Gosling, S. D., Vazire, S., Srivastava, S., & John, O. P. (2004). Should we trust web-based studies? A comparative analysis of six preconceptions about internet questionnaires. American Psycholo- gist, 59(2), 93–104. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 0003- 066x. 59.2.9 3 Hart, T. (1994). Hidden spring: The spiritual dimension of therapy. Paulist Press. Hill, P. C., Pargament, K. I., Hood, R. W., McCullough, M. E., Swyers, J. P., Larson, D. B., & Zinnbauer, B. J. (2000). Conceptualizing religion and spirituality: Points of commonality, points of departure. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 30, 51–77. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ 1468- 5914.0 0119 Hodge, D. R. (2003). The Intrinsic Spirituality Scale: A new six-item instrument for assessing the sali- ence of spirituality as a motivational construct. Journal of Social Service Research, 30(1), 41–61. https:// doi. org/ 10.1 300/ J079v 30n01_ 03 Hood, R. W., Jr. (1975). The construction and preliminary validation of a measure of reported mystical experience. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 14(1), 29–41. https:// doi. org/ 10.2 307/ 13844 54 Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conven- tional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://d oi.o rg/1 0. 1080/1 0705 51990 95401 18 Karki, N., Warlick, C. A., Baimel, A., & Jong, J. (2024). Religiosity, spirituality, and mental health in eight countries. Advanced online publication. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ rel00 00521 Kline, R. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). Guilford Press. Koenig, H. G., & Al Zaben, F. (2021). Psychometric validation and translation of religious and spiritual meas- ures. Journal of Religion and Health, 60(7), 3467–3483. https:// doi. org/ 10.1 007/ s10943- 021-0 1373-9 Koenig, H. G., & Carey, L. B. (2024). Religion, spirituality, and health research: Warning of contaminated scales. Journal of Religion and Health, 63, 3729–3743. https://d oi.o rg/1 0. 1007/s 10943- 024- 02112-6 Koenig, H. G., & Carey, L. B. (2025). Approaches for analyzing the relationship between spirituality and health using measures contaminated with indicators of mental and social health. Journal of Religion and Health. 64(2) 1276–1286. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10943-0 25-0 2249-y Larson, D. B., & Larson, S. S. (2003). Spirituality’s potential relevance to physical and emotional health: A brief review of quantitative research. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 31(1), 37–51. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00916 471030 3100 104 Lazar, A. (2021). The Spiritual Orientation Inventory (SOI): A Multidimensional Measure of Humanistic Spirituality. In A. L. Ai, P. Wink, R. F. Paloutzian, & K. A. Harris (Eds.), Assessing Spirituality in a Diverse World. Springer. Macdonald, D. A. (2000). Spirituality: Description, measurement, and relation to the five-factor model of personality. Journal of Personality, 68(1), 153–197. https:// doi. org/ 10.1 111/ 1467- 6494. T01-1- 00094 Miller, W. R., & Thoresen, C. E. (2003). Spirituality, religion, and health: An emerging research field. Ameri- can Psychologist, 58, 24–35. https:// doi. org/ 10.1 037/ 0003- 066X. 58.1. 24 Monette, D. R., & DeJong, S. (1990). Applied social research. Holt. Canel, A. N., Eksi, H., Gürsoy, H. S., & Gamze Yaman, K. (2018). Maternal spiritual coping scale: Develop- ment and validation. Spiritual Psychology and Counseling. https:// doi. org/ 10. 12738/s pc.2 018.1. 0042 3126 Journal of Religion and Health (2025) 64:3105–3127 Okan, N., Köse, N., & Kardaş, S. (2024). Spiritual contradiction scale: A new way of understanding internal and external contradictions. Journal of Religion and Health, 63, 1567–1584. https://d oi.o rg/1 0. 1007/ s10943- 023- 01924-2 Okan, N., & Şahin, Y. (2024). Mental health during crisis: Development and evaluation of the post-disaster spiritual coping scale in Turkey. Journal of Religion and Health, 63, 1609–1622. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10943- 023- 01959-5 Oxhandler, H. K., Polson, E. C., Ander, G., Moffatt, K. M., Pearce, M., Vieten, C., & Pargament, K. I. (2024). Helpful and harmful approaches to integrating religion and spirituality into mental health care: A national survey of current clients’ experiences in the USA. Journal of Religion and Health. https:// doi. org/ 10.1 007/ s10943- 024-0 2072-x Pargament, K. I. (2011). Spiritually integrated psychotherapy: Understanding and addressing the sacred. Guilford press. Pargament, K. I. (1997). The psychology of religion and coping: Theory, research, practice. Guilford Press. Pargament, K. I. (2023). From research to practice: Three waves in the evolution of the psychology of reli- gion and spirituality. Spiritual Psychology and Counseling, 8(3), 207–225. https:// doi. org/ 10. 37898/ spc. 2023.8. 3. 191 Piedmont, R. L. (2004). Assessment of spirituality and religious sentiments (ASPIRES) technical manual (Columbia, MD: Ralph L. Piedmont ). Piedmont, R. L. (2001). Does spirituality represent the sixth factor of personality? Spiritual transcendence and the five‐factor model. Journal of Personality, 67(6), 985–1013. https:// doi. org/ 10.1 111/ 1467- 6494. 00080 Piedmont, R. L., Christine Kennedy, M., Sherman, M. F., Sherman, N. C., & Williams, J. E. G. (2008). A psychometric evaluation of the Assessment of Spirituality and Religious Sentiments (ASPIRES) scale: Short form. In R. L. Piedmont (Ed.), Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion, Volume 19 (pp. 163–181). BRILL. https:// doi. org/ 10.1 163/ ej. 97890 04166 462.i-2 99.5 5 Post, B. C., & Wade, N. G. (2009). Religion and spirituality in psychotherapy: A practice-friendly review of research. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 65(2), 131–146. https:// doi. org/ 10.1 002/ jclp. 20563 Powers, R. (2005). Counseling and spirituality: A historical review. Counseling and Values, 49(3), 217–225. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/J. 2161-0 07X. 2005. tb010 24.x Ransome, Y. (2020). Religion, spirituality, and health: New considerations for epidemiology. American Jour- nal of Epidemiology, 189(8), 755–758. https://d oi.o rg/1 0. 1093/a je/k waa0 22 Sahin, Y., & Okan, N. (2024). Development of a scale examining post-disaster copingmotivations in turkey after the 6 February earthquake. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ mpr. 203110 Sargeant, S., & Yoxall, J. (2023). Psychology and spirituality: Reviewing developments in history, method and practice. Journal of Religion and Health, 62, 1159–1174. https:// doi. org/ 10.1 007/ s10943-0 22-0 1731-1 Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation mod- els: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research, 8(2), 23–74. https:// doi. org/ 10.2 3668/ psych archi ves. 12784 Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2010). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). Routledge. Shafranske, E. P. (2024). Religion and spirituality in psychotherapy: A personal bedrock of faith. Spirituality in Clinical Practice, 11(1), 48–54. https:// doi. org/ 10.1 037/ scp00 00359 Shafranske, E. P., & Gorsuch, R. L. (1984). Factors associated with the perception of spirituality in psycho- therapy. Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 16, 231–241. Shattuck, E. C., & Muehlenbein, M. P. (2020). Religiosity/spirituality and physiological markers of health. Journal of Religion and Health, 59, 1035–1054. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10943- 018- 0663-6 Şirin, T. (2018). Maneviyat Ölçeği’nin geliştirilmesi: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması [Spirituality Scale: Development, validity and reliability]. Turkish Studies, 13(8), 1283–1309. https:// doi. org/ 10. 7827/ Turki shStu dies. 13996 Steensland, B., Wang, X., & Schmidt, L. C. (2018). Spirituality: What does it mean and to whom? Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 57(3), 450–472. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ jssr. 12534 Sümer, N. (2000). Yapısal Eşitlik Modelleri: Temel Kavramlar ve Örnek Uygulamalar [Structural Equa- tion Modeling: Basic Concepts and Applications]. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 3(6), 49–74. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using Multivariate Statistics (6th ed.). Pearson. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Computer-assisted research design. Allyn and Bacon. Umarji, O., & Islam, F. (2024). The role of holistic religiosity on mental health and mental illness: A global study of Muslims. Advanced online publication. https:// doi. org/ 10.1 037/ rel00 00522 Journal of Religion and Health (2025) 64:3105–3127 3127 Ünal, M. S. (2000). Mistik tecrübe ölçeğinin güvenilirlik ve geçerlik çalışması [Reliability and validity study of the Mystical Experience Scale] (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü. https://a cikbi lim.y ok. gov. tr/ handle/ 20.5 00. 12812/5 56355 Underwood, L. G., & Teresi, J. A. (2002). The daily spiritual experience scale: Development, theoretical description, reliability, exploratory factor analysis, and preliminary construct validity using health- related data. Annals of Behavioral Medicine: A Publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine, 24(1), 22–33. https://d oi. org/ 10. 1207/ S15324 796AB M2401_ 04 Vaughan, F. (1991). Spiritual issues in psychotherapy. Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 23(2), 105–119. Vieten, C., Oxhandler, H. K., Pearce, M., Fry, N., Tanega, C., & Pargament, K. (2023). Mental health profes- sionals’ perspectives on the relevance of religion and spirituality to mental health care. BMC Psychol- ogy, 11(1), 439. https:// doi.o rg/ 10. 1186/ s40359-0 23- 01466-y Wildman, W. J., Rohr, D., Sandage, S. J., & Donato, N. C. (2024). The Dimensions of Spirituality Inventory. Archive for the Psychology of Religion, 46(1), 35–70. https:// doi.o rg/ 10.1 177/0 08467 24231 1851 80 Yakup, İ, Halil, E., & Füsun, E. (2019). Manevi Aşkınlık Ölçeği’nin Türkçeye Uyarlanması: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması. İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 20(3), 1008–1020. https://d oi. org/ 10. 17679/i nuefd. 562410 Zinnbauer, B. J., Pargament, K. I., Cole, B., Rye, M. S., Butter, E. M., Belavich, T. G., Hipp, K. M., Scott, A. B., & Kadar, J. L. (1997). Religion and spirituality: Unfuzzying the fuzzy. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 36(4), 549. https:// doi. org/1 0. 2307/ 13876 89 Zinnbauer, B. J., Pargament, K. I., & Scott, A. B. (1999). The emerging meanings of religiousness and spir- ituality: Problems and prospects. Journal of Personality, 67, 889–919. https://d oi. org/ 10. 1111/ 1467- 6494. 00077 Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Authors and Affiliations Halil Ekşi1  · Dilek Günel1,4  · Ece Yağcı Akgündüz1,2  · Emre Gürkan1  · Fadile Zeynep Çavuş1,3  · Yasemin Altıntaş1 * Halil Ekşi halileksi@marmara.edu.tr Dilek Günel gnel.dilek@gmail.com Ece Yağcı Akgündüz eceyagci8@gmail.com Emre Gürkan emregurkan66@gmail.com Fadile Zeynep Çavuş fadilezeynep.cavus@gmail.com Yasemin Altıntaş yaseminaltintas7@gmail.com 1 Department of Psychological Counseling and Guidance, Marmara University, Istanbul, Türkiye 2 Department of Psychological Counseling and Guidance, Istanbul Sabahattin Zaim University, Istanbul, Türkiye 3 Department of Psychological Counseling and Guidance, Fatih Sultan Mehmet Vakıf University, Istanbul, Türkiye 4 Department of Educational Sciences, Air NCO Vocational HE School, Turkish National Defence University, İzmir, Türkiye